Strange

An animation of this: (Depending on your browser, you might have to click the image to see the animation) From: https://cplberry.com/tag/polarizations/ For the sources of gravitational waves we have seen so far, the amplitude of the oscillation will be approximately sinusoidal (because it is created by two objects in approximately circular orbits around one another). But both the amplitude and frequency will be continuously changing. Nice breakdown of the waveform and what it tells us in the image and text here: https://cplberry.com/2016/02/23/gw150914-the-papers/#parameter-estimation

I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that the flash of lightning happens "now" (even though it was actually microseconds ago) and the thunder happens later. Even though both happened at the same time at the origin (which you would call "now" if you were located there). I can't see what is confusing about that. And maybe sometimes we can't see the lightning but I don't know how that is relevant. I also can't see what the problem is with the relative time difference between two planets separated by a significant light-travel delay. This is the same thing we saw when astronauts were on the moon. There was a 2 or 3 second delay before the signal got there then another delay before their reply got back. So conversations were filled with 5 second pauses. Nothing odd about that. Well, that's true. We are all travelling in parallel to the future. But we will see other's time at a slightly different rate. So when we experience 2,000 years pass on Earth, we may see that 1,999 years have passed on that distant planet because of relative difference in speed.

Another vote for geode. If you break it open, sometimes there are spectacular crystal formations inside. Or, more usually, a mess of grubby quartz.

That's a shame. *shrug* If you see a lightning flash and then a few seconds later here the thunder, do you worry that they didn't happen at the same time. It doesn't sound like there is any science here, just your confusion about the finite speed of light. We have had this conversation before and it doesn't seem that anyone can help you get your head around it.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. ! Moderator Note Indeed. I was tempted to move it to Trash for that reason alone.

The magnetic field is proportional to the current. But, for a given coil, the current will be proportional to voltage. So the simplest way of increase the current is to increase the voltage.

Because that is meaningless “word salad”. I would be very sceptical about claims this person is a physicist or mathematician.

The thing that opposes it from the Earth surface is a "force"

! Moderator Note Done. When you come back and either request this thread to be re-opened or start a new one, please make sure you follow all the rules of the forum. Speculative theories need to be supported. You need to present your case here on there forum, not by posting documents. Thank you.

! Moderator Note 1. This was off topic in the original thread 2. Do not hijack threads with your own ideas. 3. When quoting text it is not only polite but required to cite the source 4. The quoted text is nonsense

Please start another thread to discuss the finite speed of light. So we observe a planet 2000 light year away. So we are seeing it as it was 2,000 years ago. The alien civilization may just be getting started (or maybe is already well developed) at that point. 4,000 years after that, a future alien of that civilization is observing Earth. They see it as it was 2,000 years before that; ie. as it is now. *waves* What is the problem with that (apart from language not really making it easy to describe events happing in the past in the future - we need the future historic tense).

Unfortunately, we can't pinpoint the source of gravitational waves accurately enough to test the lensing (and the chances of spotting a suitable candidate, even if we could, are pretty low). But there is no reason why anyone would particular want to test a baseless assumption that is already contradicted by evidence and theory. Designing experiments to test some random person's random guess about how things work is a waste of time.

Absolutely. The average distance to planets found so far is about 2000 light years. (Still off topic, though.)

I can't see where it says that? OK. Got it. I am rather sceptical about that sentence. I suspect it may have been sneaked in by a "free energy nut". (The article it links to for support makes some passing reference to "controversial attempts to extract energy" - I think they are being too kind.) The "Origin" section explains why it arises, but isn't very clear. Simplifying a lot, quantum theory says that values of fields always oscillate. Because there is no such thing as negative energy, they can't oscillate around zero (or half the time they would be negative). So they oscillate about some value greater than zero. As a result, the average value is more than zero. (The Origin section might make a bit more sense after that ... maybe?) Noooo.... Random speculations from random people!!!

You could. Or you could create a light out of nowhere. Two reality checks for the price of one. Personally, I can't remember the last time I dreamt and it wasn't a lucid dream. (Or, more accurately, if I am awake enough to remember a dream, I was awake enough to be aware I was dreaming.) I'm not sure I do.

You should have a large amount of control in a lucid dream. So if your tests don't work it is because you don't want them to.

That is not a problem because virtual particles (which are not really particles) are not constrained in that way. (Also, a quantum theory of gravity might completely change our understanding of the event horizon.)

If you are not certain that you are dreaming, then it is not a lucid dream. Can you control the dream - what happens next or rerun bits with different outcomes, etc? If so then (a) it is a lucid dream and (b) it is obvious you are dreaming (because you can't do those things in reality). First sentence from the description in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dream

What is a "reality check"? Is this an attempt to tell if you are awake or dreaming? Isn't it obvious that you are dreaming? It's not like reality, is it.

No. I don't see how an alien can be living "currently" and "in the future" (well, I suppose "the future" includes the rest of their lifetime). That has nothing to do with "universal now" or "one present". An alien living now, some distance away, could be watching us as we were in the past. And an alien living in the future could see us as we are now. But nether of those seem to fit what you said. Also, this is completely off topic. So start a new thread if you want to discuss light propagation delay.

The temperature is determined by measuring the ratios of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes in the water. A good explanation here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-are-past-temperatures/ Without seeing the diagram, I can't be sure but it sounds more like it was showing reflection not refraction. (But I don't think CO2 reflects light significantly either.)

Correct. That is why it is called the theory of "relativity" - it is about measurements made by one observer and compared to the measurements made by another. This applies to time, length, energy and maybe other things. You can only tell that these are different if you compare them. But we also know how to calculate what someone else will measure. Those are the same thing. It is not an absolute number. It is 13.8 billion years ago / before now as measured by us. It could be a different number measured by someone else at a different place (or at a different time, obviously). That makes no sense. We have a calendar based on the (supposed) birth of Christ. So, currently, that happened 2020 years ago. Next year it will have happened 2021 years ago. Similarly, this year the big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. Next year it will have happened 13.8 billion + 1 years ago. That is a bit silly because the numbers are not exact enough that one year will make any difference, so it would be better to say: This year the big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. In 1 billion years time, it will have happened 14.8 billion ago. If they had measured it 2.8 billion years ago and 6.2 billion years in the future, yes. I'm not sure what the question is. We can't know if there is an alien looking at us. How can there be "currently an alien living in the future"? It is either current or in the future (or in the past). Take a real example: Betelgeuse may have already gone supernova. We won't know until the light reaches us. When it does, we will (informally) say "Betelgeuse has just gone supernova". But obviously it will have happened about 640 years before that. But none of that has anything to do with relativity or the age of the universe.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

Not a topic I know much about, but batteries capable of providing enough energy to spit the water fast enough to generate hydrogen (nicely, it would also generate oxygen to burn the hydrogen with) would be presumably be pretty massive. And if you are carrying batteries that powerful, maybe they could drive the engines directly? After all, the hydrogen can't have any more energy than the batteries provided to create it. Interesting idea, though.

Even if true, this has nothing to do with "design" in any sense that I can see. Also, it has nothing to do with the universe being suitable for life. A universe that had "design" (whatever that means) could be hostile to life. A universe that was "a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines" could be unsuitable for life. Either could have different laws of physics, and therefore chemistry, and so be suitable for life completely different from ours. So you seem to have three completely different ideas, that have no obvious connection or dependency: The universe "has design". It is not clear what this means or how it could be tested. The universe is a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines. Not really clear how one could test this. Unless someone actually found one of the machines. What are the machines made of by the way? Smaller machines? The universe is suitable for life as we know it. This one is easily answered by evolution: Douglas Adams